SCOTUS strikes down gay marriage bans, legalizing marriage equality nationwide

Status
Not open for further replies.
3wv0Nq9.png


I sincerely don't know what he's talking about. When has conservatism ever meant that?
 
Uhhh...so who is this "Bryan Fischer" guy? A lot of people in my twitter timeline retweet him with a snide remark but I kinda can't believe he is for real.

"June 26, 2015: the day the twin towers of truth and righteousness were blown up by moral jihadists." Really? Come on, that has to be some joke I don't get.
(former?) Head of the American Family Association, a designated hate group.
 
On many things...they are. Hillary wasn't touting gay marriage until a year after Obama which in Obama's tenure as president should have been something he was touting from the start. There's some speech of Hillary's in the senate railing against gay marriage. A lot of these politicians have no spine to stand up for things that aren't popular(even when it's people's rights) and only jump on the bandwagon when they see public opinion change. That's good for a representative democracy but pretty bad when it means denying people their liberties and happiness. People's rights shouldn't be up for public opinion. Most national democrats done goofed for years and years by acting like Republicans.

Does it really matter?

A lot of people had to grow, shift, change and educate themselves on the issue

Empathy isn't always instant or easy but I am grateful for those that take the steps

I was Nuetral and apathetic myself for a long time. If it wasnt for my Mom and her gay friends I would have never bothered to get to know the people it affects and how personal it is.

Its a process and we shouldn't be shitting on those who took the slow bus to get here. What matters is that WE GET THERE... together
 
Next hurricane will be blamed on this by a republican presidential candidate.
 
3wv0Nq9.png


I sincerely don't know what he's talking about. When has conservatism ever meant that?

Conservatism has always meant that in my memory, or at least it's supposed to be about pursuing smaller government and fewer laws. However, today's conservatives don't seem to be interested in those ideas so perhaps "conservatism" has a new definition.
 
Here's a list of reactions from some of the many presidential candidates: http://time.com/3937636/supreme-court-gay-marriage-presidential-candidates/

Seeing the words "tradition" thrown around a lot. My response to that is: So what? What good is a tradition that locks people out of fundamental rights everyone else gets? It was "tradition" 150 years ago that black men walked around in chains, that didn't make it right to do. Fuck tradition, I'll make my own, and if a later generation decides my traditions are foolish, I'll abide it and not cling to the past.
 
I don't think you understand why I was telling them to fuck off. They are telling trans women that they are men.

Correct me if Im wrong, but in the eyes of the law in many of the states where gay marriage was illegal, isnt that the case? That they consider trans-women as men?

At 9:59am it would have been illegal for Birdo to marry Yoshi, at 10:00am, it became legal.

So in that regards, the tweet is fine.
 
3wv0Nq9.png


I sincerely don't know what he's talking about. When has conservatism ever meant that?

It's consistent with the libertarian strain of conservatism, which I'm pretty sure Colin ascribes too. I think libertarians are terrible in their own way, but they are generally consistent at least, and good on civil liberties.
 
Really disappointed but not surprised to see so many of the republican presidential candidates speaking out negatively about this decision.
 
I find it funny that conservatives are railing against these "unelected judges" deciding the future of America. Judicial elections are horrible everywhere they are allowed. The fact that the Supreme Court isn't elected is a godsend for our nation.


Also I hope this ruling is enforced with the same gusto as Brown v. Board of Education. Especially looking at Mississippi right now.
 
First gay marriage in Mississippi was an interracial couple. So awesome.

Hattiesburg, MS for those who want to know.
 
I think you are reading WAY too much in to that. Regardless of what gender people identify with they can get married now. Let's at least be happy about that...please?

No.

Correct me if Im wrong, but in the eyes of the law in many of the states where gay marriage was illegal, isnt that the case? That they consider trans-women as men?

At 9:59am it would have been illegal for Birdo to marry Yoshi, at 10:00am, it became legal.

So in that regards, the tweet is fine.

That's not something to celebrate.
 
(former?) Head of the American Family Association, a designated hate group.

I hate when hate groups choose names like 'American Family Association' just because saying "I disagree with the American Family Association" sounds bad to the ignorant who don't know what those groups really are.
 
Conservatism has always meant that in my memory, or at least it's supposed to be about pursuing smaller government and fewer laws. However, today's conservatives don't seem to be interested in those ideas so perhaps "conservatism" has a new definition.

I thought conservatism was about adhering to political and religious authority. As far as I know, it's always about retaining "traditional" values.
 
This statement implies that the Supreme Court has always ruled correctly and interpreted all laws justly. The court of a nation which was founded with legal slavery and only white male landowners having the right to vote. Riiiight.


So are you saying this ruling giving equality is wrong?

Quite honestly not at all what I said. However those people who are saying gays shouldn't get married because the 10 amendment says states retain some rights, by the highest court of the land who interpretes that amendment, invalidates the opinion of the highest court of the land(who again interpretes the laws and constitution) is insane.

But your assumptions of what my post means is way off, and I reject your opinion regarding my post, and hope you apologize.
 
Nice. Surprised Kennedy was majority and not Roberts, as I always took Kennedy for the pro states rights kinda guy. But I'm happy either way.
 
RE: People inexplicably talking about Obama being nominated for the Supreme Court (which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, sorry for continuing what might be construed as a derail)

It is true that Taft was the Chief Justice and nothing technically disqualifies a future President from nominating a past President to the court. That being said, the trend in recent years has been towards nominating Appellate court justices.

There was an article recently speaking as to how many of the problems in the court are because they all have this same background.

If they sprinkled in folks with legislative or executive experience, the opinions would make more sense in some contexts
 
The National Organization For Marriage refuses to give up...



NOM_LOGO.gif


Today's decision is by no means the final word concerning the definition of marriage; indeed it is only the beginning of the next phase in the struggle. NOM is committed to reversing this ruling over the long term and ameliorating it over the short term.

We also call on Congress to advance to the states for consideration a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in the law as it has existed in reality for the entirety of our nation's existence – the union of one man and one woman. We call on the American people to make the definition of marriage a pivotal issue in the 2016 presidential contest and to elect a president who will be a true champion for marriage, one who is committed to taking specific steps to restoring true marriage in the law including appointing new justices to the Supreme Court who will have the opportunity to reverse this decision.
 
I find it funny that conservatives are railing against these "unelected judges" deciding the future of America. Judicial elections are horrible everywhere they are allowed. The fact that the Supreme Court isn't elected is a godsend for our nation.


Also I hope this ruling is enforced with the same gusto as Brown v. Board of Education. Especially looking at Mississippi right now.

The whole activist judges thing was a smart tactical move by conservatives considering we didn't get a state to legalize gay marriage via mandate until three years ago. It's always been hypocritical because of how many of them want to put on the bench their own activist judges to get rid of abortion rights, but then again politics is all about hypocrisy.
 
If McCain is President...no Sotomayor nor Kagan. Ruling 6-3 against marriage equality most likely.
It's even worse than that. A ruling upholding gay marriage bans would have reduced the states allowing gay marriage to 36 to like 10. Any state that had a state amendment ban struck down would have been reinstated.
 
I hate when hate groups choose names like 'American Family Association' just because saying "I disagree with the American Family Association" sounds bad to the ignorant who don't know what those groups really are.
Lots more where that came from. "Family Research Council", "Focus on the Family", several more I don't feel like digging up from Chick-fil-a donation documents...
 
So are you saying this ruling giving equaliry is wrong?

Quite honestly not at all what I said. However those people who are saying gays shouldn't get married because the 10 amendment says states retain some rights, by the highest court of the land who interpretes that amendment, invalidates the opinion of the highest court of the land(who again interpretes the laws and constitution) is insane.

But your assumptions of what my post means is way off, and I reject your opinion regarding my post, and hope you apologize.
It's fine for people to disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretations. Like Dred Scott. Or Plessy.
 
So are you saying this ruling giving equaliry is wrong?

Quite honestly not at all what I said. However those people who are saying gays shouldn't get married because the 10 amendment says states retain some rights, by the highest court of the land who interpretes that amendment, invalidates the opinion of the highest court of the land(who again interpretes the laws and constitution) is insane.

But your assumptions of what my post means is way off, and I reject your opinion regarding my post, and hope you apologize.

I'm saying that it's ok to criticize the Supreme Court's decisions. If you disagree, you should be the one to apologize :P
 
Sounds like some conservatives want to start a nuclear war at the gay bah, gay bah, gay bah wow.

jpYD1Hu.gif


Real talk, this is a big win for human rights. Let's see what further great things this supposed thousand years of darkness brings us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom